Tag: NEWS & UPDATES

1
Must-haves for your e-discovery toolkit
2
UK Introduces Practice Direction 31B Addressing the Disclosure of Electronic Documents
3
European Commission Announces Intention to Strengthen EU Data Protection Rules
4
e-Discovery in Oklahoma
5
Hot Off the Press: The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery
6
Building Your e-Discovery Toolkit
7
The Sedona Conference® Publishes 2010 Update to its Commentary on Legal Holds and the Third Edition of The Sedona Conference Glossary
8
Seventh Circuit Issues Report on Phase One of Electronic Discovery Pilot Program
9
Judge Scheindlin Amends Recent Pension Opinion
10
Court Order Provides Students, Parents Opportunity to View Images Captured by School-Issued Laptops

Must-haves for your e-discovery toolkit

By: Julie Anne Halter, K&L Gates, Seattle

This article appeared in the Puget Sound Business Journal the week of December 10-16.

In 2007, according to a report from the International Data Corporation, the “digital universe” contained 281 billion gigabytes of data.

That’s the paper equivalent of roughly 2.25 million pages per person.

Commentators predict that by 2011, the digital universe will be 10 times the size it was in 2006. If you consider the last time you wrote a handwritten letter, used a pay phone, or consulted a legal casebook, there is no denying that the world has evolved. And with it, litigation.

To read more, click here (subscription required). 

UK Introduces Practice Direction 31B Addressing the Disclosure of Electronic Documents

Effective October 1, 2010, the UK has introduced Practice Direction 31B addressing in detail the disclosure of electronic documents.  According to the Ministry of Justice, this new Practice Direction “aims to focus the parties on the sources of electronic material and give guidance to those with less experience of dealing which such issues.”  A comprehensive discussion, the Practice Direction addresses a myriad of topics, including preservation, topics for discussion between the parties, reasonable searching, keyword and automated searching, the disclosure of metadata, and the format of production.  The Practice Direction also provides an “Electronic Documents Questionnaire” which may be exchanged by the parties “in order to provide information to each other in relation to the scope, extent and most suitable format for disclosure of Electronic Documents in the proceedings.”  The questionnaire, like Practice Direction 31B, is quite detailed and covers issues like the scope of a reasonable search, suggested search methodologies, preservation, and potential problems related to electronic disclosure.

Practice Direction 31B is available here.

European Commission Announces Intention to Strengthen EU Data Protection Rules

In a press release dated November 4, 2010, the European Commission outlined its goal of reviewing and amending its Data Protection Directive to address “challenges raised by new technologies and globalisation.”  The press release announces the Commission’s intention to “put forward legislation next year to strengthen individuals’ rights while also removing red tape to ensure the free flow of data within the EU’s Single Market” and sets forth a “series of key goals”, including “[s]trengthening individuals’ rights,” “[e]nsuring high levels of protection for data transferred outside the EU,” and “[m]ore effective enforcement of the rules.” The press release is entitled, “European Commission sets out strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules” and begins:

What happens to your personal data when you board a plane, open a bank account, or share photos online? How is this data used and by whom?  How do you permanently delete profile information on social networking websites?  Can you transfer your contacts and photos to another service?  Controlling your information, having access to your data, being able to modify or delete it – these are essential rights that have to be guaranteed in today’s digital world.  To address these issues, the European Commission today set out a strategy on how to protect individuals’ data in all policy areas, including law enforcement, while reducing red tape for business and guaranteeing the free circulation of data within the EU.  This policy review will be used by the Commission with the results of a public consultation to revise the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive.  The Commission will then propose legislation in 2011.

To read the entire press release, click here.

e-Discovery in Oklahoma

As of November 1, 2010, Oklahoma’s Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides for the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  Closely mirroring the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Code addresses issues including the identification of “not reasonably accessible” information, the format of production, and sanctions for the loss of ESI resulting from the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

Oklahoma’s Code of Civil Procedure is available here.
 

Hot Off the Press: The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery

Today The Sedona Conference® made available its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery.  The commentary (published as a "public comment version") provides valuable insight and guidance on one of the hottest topics in e-discovery today.  Among other things, the publication identifies six Principles of Proportionality, intended to “provide a framework for the application of the doctrine of proportionality to all aspects of electronic discovery.”  Those principles are:

Read More

Building Your e-Discovery Toolkit

By Julie Anne Halter, K&L Gates

This article appears in the October 2010 edition of DeNovo, the official publication of the Washington State Bar Association Young Lawyers Division.

In 2007, the “digital universe” contained 280,000,000,000 gigabytes of data – roughly 45 gigabytes (or the paper equivalent of 2.25 million pages) for each person on the planet.  Commentators predict that by 2011, the digital universe will be 10 times the size it was in 2006.  And if you take a minute to consider the last time you wrote or received a hand-written letter, used a pay phone, or consulted a casebook to answer a burning legal question, there is no denying that the world has evolved … and with it, litigation.

Read More

The Sedona Conference® Publishes 2010 Update to its Commentary on Legal Holds and the Third Edition of The Sedona Conference Glossary

The Sedona Conference®, a charitable research and education institute “dedicated to the advancement of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation and intellectual property rights” recently published an update to its 2007 Commentary on Legal Holds, which, according to its authors, “reflects an accurate view of reasonable and defensible practices that organizations should consider in 2010 and going forward when addressing the issue of legal hold triggers and process.”  The Commentary provides insightful discussion of the issues surrounding preservation obligations and legal holds, including eleven Guidelines “intended to facilitate compliance by providing a framework an organization can use to create its own preservation procedures.”  It is also a great resource for practitioners and other members of the legal community who recognize the need to stay abreast of changes in this important area.

The Sedona Conference Glossary, now in its third edition, is intended to served as a “tool to assist in the understanding and discussion of electronic discovery and electronic management issues…” and provides definitions/explanations of many terms commonly (and not so commonly) used in e-discovery and digital information management.

Both publications are available for download here.

Seventh Circuit Issues Report on Phase One of Electronic Discovery Pilot Program

Last month, the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program Committee released its report on phase one of its Electronic Discovery Pilot Program.  Initiated as a “multi-year, multi-phase process to develop, implement, evaluate, and improve pretrial litigation procedures that would provide fairness and justice to all parties while seeking to reduce the cost and burden of electronic discovery consistent with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”, the first phase of the program ended on May 1, 2010, after a seven month period in which the committee’s Principles Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information were tested in practice.  Although limited in its geographic scope and number of participants, the results of phase one provide valuable insight into possible ways to better the current civil system.  The second of three phases will begin on July 1, 2010 and may be expanded to increase the number of cases and participating judges.

Too lengthy to summarize, the full report is available here.

Judge Scheindlin Amends Recent Pension Opinion

On May 28th, Judge Shira Scheindlin entered an order amending her recent opinion in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC.  The order provides important clarification regarding the scope of a party’s obligation to collect records from its employees.  The order states:

At page 10, lines 7-10, replace <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all employees (some of whom may have had only a passing encounter with the issues in the litigation), as opposed to key players, likely constitutes negligence as opposed to a higher degree of culpability.> with <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all those employees who had any involvement with the issues raised in the litigation or anticipated litigation, as opposed to just the key players, could constitute negligence.>.

A full copy of the order is available here.

Court Order Provides Students, Parents Opportunity to View Images Captured by School-Issued Laptops

For anyone who hasn’t heard, a school district in Pennsylvania has recently come under fire for using the webcams on school-issued laptops to capture images of students both during and outside of school hours – about 56,000 of them, according to reports.  According to the complaint filed in this case, students and parents were not informed of the school’s ability to use the webcams.  In at least one instance, a student was called to the assistant principal’s office to discuss an image captured by the webcam on his laptop.  His family has now sued the district and hopes that other students will join them.  According to the school district, the webcams were intended for tracking lost or stolen computers.

Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.